The judgment below

Among the guilty parts and the rejection of prosecution against victim E around September 8, 2009.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The grounds for appeal by the defendant are as follows: (1) The indictment of this case is invalid because it violates the principle of an indictment only, and thus, the prosecution procedure is invalid in violation of the provisions of law; (2) the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of

(2) Although the evidence submitted by the prosecutor does not include all the evidence related to "M", the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the evidence trial principle as stipulated under Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Act, where the court below acknowledged the part that "the defendant, along with G, H, I, etc., has the power to lead the business force of JJ in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and has the power to systematically intervene in the redevelopment project, which is being promoted in the whole group, and exercises the power to lead the business of arranging sexual traffic and the redevelopment project in that area for the purpose of taking property benefits even through violence, such as assault, threat, threat, and conflict, and that G is the person in charge of the relocation service as the staff of (L) L, who has established for the relocation and removal of the above redevelopment area."

(3) Although the Defendant did not threaten or interfere with the victim P or X, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the rules of evidence or erroneous determination of facts.

(4) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, two years of probation) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the prosecutor's grounds for appeal (1) based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant was found not guilty on the ground that he did not participate in the defendant's act even though the defendant could have acknowledged the fact of threatening the victim E on September 8, 2009 in collaboration with AC, and the judgment of the court below which dismissed the indictment on the ground of indication of non-existence of punishment E.

(2) The lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. Attached to the facts charged in this case.